Did Man make God?

[crushing]

Somehow you make me think that is smoke screen. Science is so sure about things, swears up and down they are true and many times even provides strong mathematics to prove what they say. So people believe; the scientists have said so and have proof the common man often can't understand, but they said so.

But then it changes. So how much of current science can I really believe, give a past history of constant upgrading and change? What I accept as the real Bible, the King James Bible, as translated from the Textus Receptus, has yet to change. Nor has the Textus Receptus. But as in all these discussions, those are my views, and I believe them. You may choose to do otherwise.

Science is a process. It doesn't make claims. Scientists may make claims based on the process. Claims can be debunked and replaced by better claims. It's a continuous process of understanding and knowledge.

As to the Bible saying the earth is flat, can you reference that Bible verse please?

Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, and Isaiah 11:12, and to a degree Isaiah 40:22, and Revelation 7:1

 

[K-man]

That is kind of differing from your thread title and 1st post. At least for me, I took it to be an either or, and the debate to be one or the other must be true. Well, I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for. For me, first of all, is the KJV Bible. Even the 2nd article you link to, the people who did the study aren't drawing any conclusions about the reality of God.

No either/or. I found the article in the newspaper and thought it might be interesting in light of some of the other threads. I didn't want to derail them so I started a new thread. Just no one was interested in the OP. It went straight to the actual existence of God and the veracity or otherwise of the Bible.

Well, Wycliffe wrote it as "But for fornication each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband" and as am sure you know, he was a Catholic priest who translated the Latin Vulgate into English, pretty much word for word. That was written in 1384. But the Latin Vulgate, from about the 4th century, also contained the latin word "fornicationem." That latin word seems to normally be usually translated as fornication, although whoredom and prostitution are also secondary translations. But Paul gets specific when he says because of fornication (or whoredom or prostitution) men and women should be married. In other words, he is talking about unmarried people who are in danger of the sin of fornication (whoredom or prostitution).

You can take what you want to from that, but I think is shows Paul was talking about sex between men and women who were not married.

Well firstly the original texts had to be translated into Latin which is why you need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew if you really want the original meaning. As you say, fornication in the Latin referred to brothels and that makes far more sense to the context because brothels were the places to pick up STDs even though they weren't well understood.

To each his own, but do you remember 1 Timothy 6:20? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"?

The Bible also calls itself the word of God, and says in different places that no words are to be taken from it. It also says that God's words are pure, and words to live by, and establish doctrine by.

The Bible is written in the science of the day. People believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Science changed but the Bible stayed behind. The Sun doesn't move around the Earth and The Earth is not flat. The teaching of the Bible is not plausible if you look always to the literal meaning.

Again, you may take from that what you will, but it strengthens my faith. I wish it did yours. Science is an important methodology, but apparently much of it isn't where it is supposed to be, since we keep changing it. The Bible on the other hand, was finished some 2000 years ago, and hasn't needed changes since then, despite some people trying to change it in the last hundred plus years to put forth their own agenda.

Of course we keep changing science. Science changes as our understanding changes. The Bible is an ancient tome and should be revered as such.
:asian:

 

[RTKDCMB]

How much science is based on faith? There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat. As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe. Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models. Now both are under attack. But it their time, all these models were based on faith. It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all. I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point. How is science any better than, or even different than, faith. You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.

OK a quick lesson on Science; First of all science is not based on faith, if anything it is based on skepticism. Proof and theory have different meanings in everyday language than they do in science. In everyday language proof means that something is absolutely true, in science it does not have any real meaning, proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. In everyday language theory means an idea, a concept or a guess, in science theory means a well substantiated explanation of facts and observations that can be tested and used to make predictions about future observations.

Both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity are still just as valid today as they were when they were first proposed, they just apply to different situations. Newton's Universal law of Gravitation is adequate for most practical situations whilst Einstein's applies to strong gravitational effects just like Newtonian mechanics applies better to the macroscopic and quantum mechanics applies better to the microscopic when they describe the same thing. Just like light can be be described as either a particle (momentum) and a wave (wavelength).

Contrary to popular belief the notion of a spherical earth has been around since at least the 6th century BCE when Pythagoras proposed it, which was baked up by Aristotle in the 6th century BCE. In the 3rd century BCE a guy named Eratosthenes not only proved the world was round but calculated it's circumference to within an error of 2% and this was long before science came about.


Science does not deal in proof, it deals in facts that are supported by evidence and draws conclusions based upon that evidence. When new evidence is found it either enforces the theory or contradicts it and, either way, science is advanced. Scientists freely admit they they don't know everything and are constantly searching for the truth and not just accepting it on faith. Any scientist falsifying and lying about their research won't have credibility for long and can basically kiss their careers goodbye, science at its very core is honest.

Religion and science are two entirely different and separate things. Science is based on evidence religion is based on faith. Scientific theories advance when new evidence is discovered, religion however had an explanation of how the universe began written hundreds or thousands of years ago and that explanation has not changed since, despite human beings having a much greater understanding of the universe today as they did back then.

 

[Cirdan]

How much science is based on faith? There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat. As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe. Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models. Now both are under attack. But it their time, all these models were based on faith. It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all. I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point. How is science any better than, or even different than, faith. You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.

Religion and gods had the best explanation for things for a long time, probably why we invented them (or sather because we invented them). Now sience and faith are fundamentally different, not alike at all. Sience is about testing theories and discarding them for better solutions as we grow in our understanding. Faith is about not testing. What you describe as faith in models is not faith as all because said models are being tested every step of the way, they are not accepted as eternal truth just because.

 

[RTKDCMB]

As to the Bible saying the earth is flat, can you reference that Bible verse please?

There's a passage somewhere, I don't know where, that mentions the circle of the Earth.

 

[Cirdan]

Yes. I am telling you that you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, here. Ideals are a good thing. I promise.

But can`t we have ideals without the supernaturally controlling force?

 

[Cirdan]

There's a passage somewhere, I don't know where, that mentions the circle of the Earth.

Maybe this

Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Some places in the bible says that you can see all the world from above, atop a mountain and so on, says angels are standing at the four corners, but i don`t think it directly says the eart is flat.

Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"

 

[RTKDCMB]

Maybe this

Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

That was the one.

 

[Cirdan]

Oh? So were they atheists or did they believe?

The vikings were of course practicing norse paganism, including human sacrifice.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The vikings were of course practicing norse paganism, including human sacrifice.

So that is your answer? It was a yes or no question. You would be hard pressed to find a people that didn't practice human sacrifice. The answer is then, "yes" they believed

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

No evidence to prove there is no God either so.......There is however plenty of evidence to suggest the presence of God.

Really? Please provide the evidence you are referring to, I must have missed it.

 

[MartialMellow]

I read a book, not too long ago, where they did away with religion and replaced it with math. Its called "Anathema". Another must read by Neal Stephenson.

I have not read any Neal Stephenson yet. What do you like about the author?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I have not read any Neal Stephenson yet. What do you like about the author?

First of all he is a religious philosopher, and can really help you put things into perspective. Secondly he is a damn good writer, and, thirdl, I find it hard to read anyone else's stuff, for weeks after reading his books because these lesser books have no depth.